later, your money, looking at the children's health insurance program with penny thompson. that is tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. newsmakers is next. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. >> newsmakers is next with democratic congressman adam smith of washington state followed by a hearing on global terror threats with homeland security officials. a chair confirmation for

jerome powell. congressman adam smith of washington state, the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee, a member of congress since 1996. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me on. let me introduce the reporters who will be asking questions. we want to start our conversation with the developing that,ion with north korea there are reports from multiple national news sources the white house is set to make a long rumored move with secretary of state tillerson, replacing him with mr. pompeo from the cia, and replacing mr. pompeo with

senator tom cotton. this is part of the national security team. i am wondering if you have a reaction. rep. smith: i don't know that it changes anything. my biggest concern and that is the state department. whether it is secretary tillerson or secretary pompeo, the state department has not been engaged. diplomacy has fallen off significantly. i think they have a third less people. there just does not seem to be a diplomatic focus. by thecy is governed president's tweets. the secretary of forced to react. i hope they start using in ourcy as a key tool agenda. now i am concerned about what is happening. that is a cold rural issue, drawing down

numbers of people, and that it would change with someone else at the helm? rep. smith: i doubt it would change. i do think it is a cold troll issue. it reflects president's lack of desire to deploy the state department. whether it is because he wants to control the messaging or he doesn't believe in it. a critical piece moving forward to achieving some peaceful solution, some stable solution in afghanistan and pakistan. we have made no progress in the middle east. progress been little in terms of building relationships in africa. i don't think they understand diplomacy. i have served the congressman pompeo. i am not sure he is a significant upgrade. at least tillerson was very global.

i am not optimistic the state department is going to get better. issues,one of the major north korea. >> thank you for being with us. on north korea, i would be interested in getting the reaction to the latest missile test. you did mention diplomacy. that has been the route so far. how concerned are you about this latest missile test, how concerned are you an attack might be imminent? rep. smith: i'm not concerned at all an attack is imminent. i don't believe that is north korea's intent or vision. kim jong-un has made it clear that north korea believes they need to develop a robust program for regime survival. completely wrong about this, but they believe they are going to be invaded at any moment. they have a paranoia that is impossible to overstate.

they think they have to be armed and ready. in --hink it is they are their intent to attack us -- i do not think they are intending to attack us. the not think an attack on u.s. is imminent. i do think they are continuing to develop the missile program. my concern is we stumble into a war we should not stumble into. is wee have to make clear have a credible deterrent. korea,tack us or south or any allies, we have the force to destroy them. therefore they will not engage militarily in that way. that is my biggest concern. we stumble into a conflict that north korea's going to do something. diplomacy continues to be important. i am mindful of the limitations. what i hope is what we diplomatically convey is the

deterrence. -- will defend our allies. fromsh we could stop them developing the technology they have. we will continue to sanction them, isolate them from the rest of the world. the real red line is they attack us. theow well do you think u.s. is communicating those issues? you have introduced legislation to put limits on first strike by he u.s. if you are not concerned about the north koreans attacking the u.s., what is your concerned with that? rep. smith: i would not go so far as to say i'm not concerned with north korea attacking us. they are unpredictable.

who knows how they might miscalculate. i don't believe it is their intent. i don't believe they are building these nuclear weapons because they plan on attacking us. it does not mean they might not say we think the u.s. is going to attack us, or south korea is going to attack us. that is my concern. you assume the other side is going to hit so you say we may as well go first. as far as the president's approach, thus far, working with secretary tillerson, they have communicated that message. mess with those. we will respond in a way you can't handle. delivering that message is important. i worry about whether there are people in the trump administration who think we have to do a preemptive strike. such a strike would in all likelihood set off a catastrophic war at a minimum on the korean peninsula. ,apan would be in danger

potentially with their ballistic missile capability, the united states might be in danger. the trump administration, despite rhetoric, has been willing to hold their fire. i hope that continues. >> one follow-up here. we talk about this in d.c. from a foreign-policy aspect. of are the ranking member house armed services. there are millions of troops. will you tell them as they see these developments and , thisning tests back-and-forth with the trump administration? rep. smith: it is difficult. i am not going to tell them there is nothing to worry about. you have for growing and unpredictable power in north facing off against the united states, with increasingly heated rhetoric.

there is cause for concern -- for concern. i would tell them it is my believe the united states will not engage in a precipitous war that we do not need to participate in. we can contain north korea before a military strike that would set off a chain reaction that would lead to war and distraction on the korean peninsula and elsewhere. i give you the same answer. we have to present a credible deterrent to make sure north korea does not use weapons they are developing. >> is there anything congress can do in this respect to aid the diplomatic effort and try and deter a preemptive strike, indo you find congress is bold and and lawmakers would rather see a strike on north korea? rep. smith: by and large most

members of congress do not want to see a war started. what we can do, we can use direct rhetoric. strong, credible rhetoric that we will just heard north korea and downplay preemptive or preventativeint -- action. that is not just about north korea. that is no first use, period. my concern is the lack of dialogue between nuclear powers, even during the height of the cold war we had back channel communications with the soviet union to try to avoid stumbling into a nuclear confrontation. that level of dialogue with russia and china does not seem to be there. i think we need to be there to make sure that we do not stumble into a nuclear conflict as well. i see no justification for the

first use of nuclear weapons. we need nuclear weapons as a deterrent because russia, china, those countries have those weapons. first use does not make sense, and it can calm fears of countries that we know the u.s. policy is not to use weapons first. i know we believe we would never do that, but north korea, russia don't have the same trust in the u.s. that we do. that miscalculation and paranoia us stumbling into war. >> what is the prospect of the resolution? rep. smith: i don't see them moving it, but i want to begin that dialogue. there is a lot of pieces of legislation that start off thinking what is the chance? you don't know until you try. you have to begin the process. usually isislation

an effort in patience and persistence. i want to start that debate and move us in that direction. >> i want to ship to the budget. we have had fights on the tax reform package. we are a few days away from the continuing resolution running out. i'm wondering what your concerned level is with a government shutdown? >> it is very high. we have made note progress -- no progress and we continue to fire shots back and forth without addressing the real issue. one is the budget caps. the budget caps are a problematic. the defense industry, many believe the defense needs more billionan the $549 contemplated in the budget control act. how do you get an agreement? an agreement between enough

republicans and democrats to exceed those budget cap numbers. are $20er issue is, we trillion in debt. getting rid of the budget cap doesn't change that math. maybe we survive a year, but what about five years? if you want to simply focus on is ammittee concerns there lot of angst about the fact our current military is underfunded. we have that debate. if you do a massive tax cut what is it going to be like if we don't figure out a strategy for our overall budget that is sustainable, even if we survive this year, at some point we are not one have resources necessary to maintain the national security we would like. there's a lot of different answers to that but i can tell you cutting taxes by a couple trillion dollars makes it worse.

not better. >> congressman, there is talk of doing another stopgap measure, another continuing resolution. is that something you would support or something that the democratic caucus would support, or would it be those lack of votes that could lead to a shutdown? rep. smith: i am not sure. it is something we would want to support. we need appropriations bills. whatever the number is, we need to set that number. governing on a continuing resolution at the defense department is difficult. it makes it much harder to have any sustainable national security policy. when you have to live with no new programs, and you can't get rid of old programs, it is a terrible way to govern. things are not going to be better in january than the are now. we need to set down and region

appropriations deal. that was true in january of this year president was sworn in, and it is still true today. it really is concerning we haven't made progress on that. issue we have talked about many times in the past. with back several years sequestration and budget cards. to take?at is it going what is going to be the breakthrough moment where democrats and republicans talk about tax cut's the tax increases in which program should be resolved -- reserved? going back to 2010. there is no short-term simple solution. it is going to take as an honest discussion. for too long we have had

politicians that have looked at polls and they see the public wants a budget -- balanced budget. the public is concerned, they don't want to see taxes increase. they don't want to see popular programs cut. that math does not add up. in campaign after campaign across the country have politicians promising that. this gleebeat responsible. i won't cut this program. the math does not add up. it starts with an honest conversation. the problem is right now the public wants a balanced budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. that is impossible to deliver. too many candidates have promised it. any appropriations bill that we would pass would be politically unpopular because it would not

balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending and that is why, whatever the majority, they are reluctant to say here is my appropriations bill. probably into fail all three of those areas. it is certainly not want to balance the budget. it will be unpopular. if it cut's spending it will be unpopular. until we can have an honest budgetation about the choices we face we will be trapped in this gridlock. terms,ore immediate republicans and democrats are at a stalemate. there was progress made at the staff level on budget talks, lifting caps but those fell through. democrats have certain to requirements, including immigration that should be omnibus budget

deal. republicans want to increase defense a lot more than they for domestic spending. where'd do you see this going? how do you see both parties coming together to do the right thing as you say, and have that conversation one time is running short? rep. smith: i want to make sure you understand my answer. there is what i think should happen, what i would like to see happen. we should come together on an agreement. it has not worked. we should repeal the budget control act, reach an agreement on what to do about defense and nondefense discretionary

spending, and we should look at revenue and the broader budget and put together a budget that gives us a pathway towards a sustainable budget. that is what ought to happen. their public and tax cut alone is killing that debate. how can you be talking about reducing revenue to the federal government. i don't believe cutting taxes increases revenue. it doesn't. you can look at the numbers and see clearly it doesn't area i have the easiest job in the world. revenue,axes increased the ideal tax rate would be zero. that doesn't pencil out. if the tax rates get too high, and there was a time where we had a 90% tax rate. a capital gains rate that was 66%. 39.top tax right now is

at that level you simply are not going to change the dynamic by cutting taxes. we've got to have an honest conversation. that is what should happen. , thats likely to happen we stumble through a short-term and we keepther moving forward and don't pass appropriations bills. i think that would be a colossal failure, a huge problem for our government functioning properly. sawn the rhetoric, what we out of president trump before negotiations started which said i am not going to do anything -- i don'tts want see a deal before they even howted talking, i don't see we get there. i think it is going to be bad for the country next week terms

of how we handle the budget. >> are you worried democrats are going to be blamed? rep. smith: my focus is not on who gets the partisan blame. my focus is on governing the government properly. i think the government will benefit if we have an intelligent approach to governing. we should try and talk with republicans. i don't blame below see schumer for not wanting to show up, where the president says you guys are awful, terrible, and what you want is not anything we can talk about. you have to say that is not a negotiation. we are not negotiating with a credible partner. president will say

let's sit down and talk and see where we wind up. that is what needs to happen. i am focused on the good of the country. the partisan blame i will leave to others. military to bring up operations in africa. we have heard reports in the last week, that operations in somalia may have had acces excess civilian casualties. what is the committee role looking forward on that? what is your concern with the lack of public awareness? our role is oversight, to make sure we andmize civilian casualties take responsibility for them when they happen. you have to be aware that our enemies, we do clearly have they will constantly claim civilian casualties.

they will even create civilian casualties and blame them on us. we have to fight back against that and make sure record is clear and accurate. i am concerned about the increased pace of bombing and military operations under the trump administration and whether there is sufficient accountability. independent agencies, not groups that oppose us, independent upncies have gone significantly. we need to address that. somalia,idual case in our military says it was enemy combatants. word. them at their as far as your, about whether or not it was intentional, i don't think there has ever been any evidence the u.s. has intentionally in this fight against al qaeda targeted

civilians. we don't do that. what does happen is in the bombing, civilians are caught in the crosshair. inhumane for one thing. it only adds fuel to the fire of terrorist groups that want to attack us. it makes it easier for them to recruit. housek the role of the armed services committee is to conduct oversight, to make sure when civilian casualties happen, and to take steps to minimize it. >> we have one minute. final question? >> i do want to clarify the report. but just to go back on that, the level of aggression you are saying, is that a reflection of from, of the military? where are your concerns coming from? rep. smith: that is a reflection

of trump. there was a feeling that the obama administration was too cautious. that they hesitated on a number of attacks when they should have gone forward. wants toresident trump do the opposite of whatever president obama has done, has said you are more free to attack when you think you should. civilian oversight is critical to make sure that we are attacking at the appropriate time and place. it does reflect a change in approach, president trump was to be more aggressive about attacking the enemy. there are terrorist groups that threaten us. i do have any problem with hitting those groups before they had us. so.e is a cost doing you start having civilian casualties and turning populations against us instead of terrorist groups.

>> thank you for being our guest. daily democrat on the house armed services committee. houseete democrat on the armed services committee. lookat does capitol hill like in the coming weeks? >> right now there is just a question of shutdown. we are getting out of the tax debate. what a compromise measures going to look like? in terms of another cr, a long-term deal, there is total uncertainty. >> does others -- does either side want a shutdown? >> i don't think they do. like it could be likely. the two sides are not close even ato agree on

short-term stopgap measure. >> in the past there were rumors of deals, some progress forward. we have not heard much of anything. as lawmakers are about the inability to repeal these budget caps, there is at least rumors of a two-year plan. this, despite having three months into the fiscal year, it is where we were in september. >> there were discussions at the staff level, some sort of tentative plan to increase defense spending by 54 billion. but the democrats were not happy with the offer on the domestic side. that was well before everything imploded between president trump

band nancy pelosi in chuck schumer. that was before they canceled on the white house meeting. you ask lawmakers, it is still at the staff level. they might have a very tight vote for those who don't with a see another continuing resolution. madee congress and reference to the immigration issue. that is the fate of the dreamers. young people who came to this country at an early age. theyemocrats have argued

should have a pathway to citizenship. are the numbers more important? >> it is hard to say. this is a major issue. if the issue is not addressed they will not back in the short-term deal. i don't think it is a bargaining chip. to the larger point, even if cr, iound a two-week don't know there is any progress on issues like that with these disagreements. i don't know there is really a clear path ahead on immigration. thenything at the heart of budget fights right now. >> what did you think of the congressman's assessment of the

situation? >> it is concerning, but it was good to get his assessment, not expecting any enemy that -- .mminent attack i think we are getting to a point where everything really hangs in the balance. there could be a misstep at some point on north korea's side or the united states side. there's a lot of reason for concern. >> the danger of a misstep, what new dynamic does that have? if there is new leadership in the cabinet. does it -- it is hard to imagine it is going to calm things. jim mattis has definitely stressed the diplomatic

solution. rattling see any saber just yet on the military side. they are definitely supporting the diplomatic talks side of the issue. you.anks to both of we appreciate your time and expertise. >> today, live on in depth, professors cornell west and robert george will be our guest. >> any time i have a chance to 13in dialogue, we go back years. commitment to ideas. we have had a chance to teach around the country. i don't see him as a

conservative thinker, catholic philosopher, i see him as my brother and friend. someone who has a right to be wrong. >> if you're going to work together in conversation. truth,bate to get at the the people first have to fallible,they are fallible human beings. they could be wrong. cherished -- most i could be wrong. if they have that understanding, in a deeply appropriated way, one will be able to